People vs. De Dios

Trafficking in persons is committed when a person recruits, harbors, or offers a child for prostitution, even without threat, force, coercion, fraud, or abuse of power, because taking advantage of the child’s vulnerability supplies the means and the child’s minority qualifies the offense.

Evangeline De Dios y Barreto was charged with qualified trafficking in persons under R.A. No. 9208, as amended by R.A. No. 10364. The statute defines trafficking in persons and classifies trafficking of a child as qualified trafficking, punishable by life imprisonment and a fine of not less than Two million pesos but not more than Five million pesos. The Information alleged that De Dios recruited and harbored three persons, including AAA, a 16-year-old minor, for prostitution and other sexual exploitation.

According to the prosecution, AAA, who was born on October 21, 1996, was only 16 years old when she was peddled for sexual trade by De Dios on the evening of August 29, 2013 to Rugielito Gay and two other male customers in Marikina City, near the Marikina River Park. De Dios approached Gay and, as she introduced herself as “Vangie,” asked him “kung gusto ko daw ba gumimik?” She explained that “gimik” meant having sex with a girl for P500.00. Negotiations ensued between Gay and De Dios, who claimed to have three girls with her. When De Dios refused to lower the price to P300.00, Gay handed to her the amount of P500.00; De Dios then called three girls who were standing by steel railings. Gay was allowed to choose from among the girls, and then selected AAA. It turned out that Gay and his companions were mere poseur customers, and that De Dios was the subject of an entrapment operation of the Anti-Human Trafficking Division (AHTRAD) of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). Prior to the operation, there was already information received by the NBI-AHTRAD that De Dios was peddling minors for sexual trade under the bridge at the Marikina River Park. The information was validated via a surveillance operation made by members of the agency, which then prompted the conduct of the entrapment operation on August 29, 2013. After the entrapment, Gay, who was actually an Intelligence Agent of the Department of Justice (DOJ) – Inter Agency Council Against Trafficking (IACAT), brought AAA to an area where personnel of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) was waiting, and then to the AHTRAD for investigation.

AAA testified that she knew De Dios through her best friend, one Nicole, who also worked for De Dios in the latter’s illegal activity. Sometime in May 2012, AAA had her first “gimik” with De Dios’ male customer who brought her to a hotel in Antipolo City and there he had sexual intercourse with her. From then on, AAA worked for De Dios and had sex with several other male customers. She received P400.00 from De Dios for every transaction. On the night of the entrapment, De Dios invited AAA for a friend’s despedida party at Lola Helen’s Panciteria. Also present for the occasion were BBB, XXX, YYY, ZZZ, KKK and MMM. From there, they proceeded to the park under the Marikina bridge, where they saw De Dios approach two men and ask, “Kuya, gigimik kayo?” The men replied, “Nasaan yung babae mo?” De Dios then pointed at AAA, XXX and YYY. One man chose AAA and then gave P700.00 to De Dios. Thereafter, AAA and her customer took a tricycle to a McDonald’s restaurant, where NBI and DSWD personnel took custody of AAA.

Only De Dios testified for the defense. She claimed to have lived near the bridge in Sto Nino, Marikina City since 2008, until she moved to Rodriguez, Rizal in 2011. On August 29, 2013, at around 10:00 o’clock in the evening, she dined at Sienes Panciteria in Barangay Sto. Nino, Marikina City upon the invitation of a friend named Jay. On her way to the restaurant, she saw AAA, XXX, YYY and other companions. AAA told De Dios that she was hungry, and so her group joined De Dios to the restaurant. De Dios knew AAA, XXX and YYY as they used to regularly hang out by the bridge, where AAA, XXX and YYY looked for customers. Since her relocation to Rodriguez, Rizal, De Dios stopped hanging out in the area, and would visit Sto. Nino only to visit their old house.

The prosecution charged De Dios by Information dated October 14, 2013. At arraignment, she pleaded not guilty; after pre-trial, trial on the merits ensued. The RTC and CA both relied on the matching testimonies of AAA, Special Investigator Doriente Durian of the NBI-AHTRAD, and Intelligence Agent Gay of the DOJ-IACAT on how De Dios committed the crime on the evening of August 29, 2013. Both courts found that AAA, then still a minor, was among the girls offered in the illicit sexual trade upon the promise of financial gain for their services, and that the entrapment operation culminated a surveillance operation conducted by the NBI-AHTRAD. They also found that De Dios approached and proposed a “gimik” to Gay and, when Gay pretended to accede, De Dios readily accepted prepared marked money as consideration for the service.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: De Dios argued that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she was guilty of qualified trafficking in persons under Section 3(a) of R.A. No. 9208.
• Absence of Trafficking Means: De Dios argued that there was no threat, force, coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, or abuse of power established in the case.
• Lack of Control or Monitoring: De Dios maintained that AAA voluntarily peddled herself near the Marikina bridge for sexual services, that AAA’s activities were never under her monitor or control, and that she was regularly seen in the area only because her house was situated under the bridge.

• Sufficiency of Evidence for Qualified Trafficking: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of qualified trafficking in persons under Section 3(a), in relation to Section 6(a), of R.A. No. 9208, as amended by R.A. No. 10364.

• Sufficiency of Evidence for Qualified Trafficking: Yes. The prosecution established the elements of trafficking in persons—recruitment or harboring, taking advantage of AAA’s vulnerability as a minor, and exploitation through prostitution—and AAA’s minority qualified the offense under Section 6(a).

• Sufficiency of Evidence for Qualified Trafficking: Section 3(a) of R.A. No. 9208 defines trafficking in persons through three elements: (1) the act of recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, or receipt of persons; (2) the means of threat or use of force, coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or position, taking advantage of the vulnerability of the person, or giving or receiving payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another; and (3) the purpose of exploitation, including prostitution or other forms of sexual exploitation. Section 6(a) qualifies the offense when the trafficked person is a child, and Section 10(c) imposes life imprisonment and a fine of not less than P2,000,000.00 but not more than P5,000,000.00. In People vs. Hirang, the SC reiterated these elements. The SC held that the prosecution established them through the matching testimonies of AAA, Special Investigator Doriente Durian of the NBI-AHTRAD, and Intelligence Agent Gay of the DOJ-IACAT. AAA, then a minor, was among the girls offered in the illicit sexual trade upon the promise of financial gain; the entrapment operation culminated a surveillance operation by the NBI-AHTRAD; De Dios approached and proposed a “gimik” to Gay and accepted prepared marked money as consideration. AAA also explained De Dios’s participation even before the entrapment: De Dios convinced her to join the “gimiks” for money, first lured her to prostitution in May 2012 by offering her to a male customer and paying her P400.00, and thereafter transacted with customers and paid AAA for her service. Against this evidence, De Dios’s uncorroborated denial was weak and could not overcome the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies, especially those of the NBI-AHTRAD investigator and the DOJ-IACAT agent, whose accounts pertained to official functions presumed to have been regularly performed and who had no motive to falsely testify. The SC further held that the absence of threat, force, coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, or abuse of power did not matter because AAA was still a minor when De Dios exposed her to prostitution through prodding, promises, and acts; trafficking may be committed by taking advantage of a person’s vulnerability as a minor, a circumstance sufficiently alleged in the Information and proved during trial, and the means element was further achieved through the offer of financial gain for AAA’s illicit services. Thus, the SC affirmed the conviction for qualified trafficking in persons.

• Trafficking in Persons — Under Section 3(a) of R.A. No. 9208, the crime has three elements: (1) the act of recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, or receipt of persons; (2) the means of threat or use of force, coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or position, taking advantage of the vulnerability of the person, or giving or receiving payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another; and (3) the purpose of exploitation, including prostitution or other forms of sexual exploitation. The SC applied these elements to De Dios, who recruited or harbored AAA and offered her for prostitution for financial gain.
• Qualified Trafficking in Persons — Trafficking is qualified when the trafficked person is a child, defined as a person below eighteen years of age. The SC applied this because AAA was 16 years old at the time, and the Information alleged her minority.
• Child Trafficking Without the Enumerated Means — Section 3(a) provides that recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, or receipt of a child for exploitation is trafficking even without the means listed in the preceding paragraph; the SC also held that trafficking may be committed by taking advantage of the victim’s vulnerability as a minor. The SC applied this by ruling that the absence of threat, force, coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, or abuse of power did not preclude De Dios’s conviction.
• Presumption of Regular Performance of Official Duties — Testimonies of public officers on the discharge of their official functions are presumed to have been regularly performed, and absent any motive to falsely testify, they are entitled to credit. The SC applied this to the testimonies of the NBI-AHTRAD investigator and the DOJ-IACAT agent, which outweighed De Dios’s uncorroborated denial.

• “The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring or receipt of a child for the purpose of exploitation shall also be considered as "trafficking in persons" even if it does not involve any of the means set forth in the preceding paragraph.” — The SC quoted this statutory rule in defining trafficking; it supports the holding that child trafficking does not require the enumerated means.
• “It did not matter that there was no threat, force, coercion, abduction, fraud, deception or abuse of power that was employed by De Dios when she involved AAA in her illicit sexual trade. AAA was still a minor when she was exposed to prostitution by the prodding, promises and acts of De Dios.” — The SC rejected De Dios’s argument that the absence of force or coercion negated trafficking.
• “Trafficking in persons may be committed also by means of taking advantage of the persons' vulnerability as minors, a circumstance that applied to AAA, was sufficiently alleged in the information and proved during the trial.” — The SC explained how the means element was satisfied by taking advantage of AAA’s minority.
• “Her denial, however, was uncorroborated and weak. It could not overcome the weight of the prosecution witnesses' testimonies, especially those given by the investigator of NBI-AHTRAD and the agent of DOJ-IACAT.” — The SC credited the prosecution witnesses over De Dios’s defense.

• People vs. Hirang, G.R. No. 223528, January 11, 2017 — The SC relied on this case for the three elements of trafficking in persons under Section 3(a) of R.A. No. 9208.

• Section 3(a), R.A. No. 9208 — Defines trafficking in persons as recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, or receipt of persons by means of threat, force, coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or position, taking advantage of vulnerability, or giving or receiving payments or benefits to achieve consent, for exploitation including prostitution or sexual exploitation; it also treats recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, or receipt of a child for exploitation as trafficking even without the means. Applied to De Dios’s recruitment or harboring and offering of AAA for prostitution.
• Section 6(a), R.A. No. 9208 — Classifies trafficking as qualified when the trafficked person is a child. Applied because AAA was 16 years old at the time.
• Section 10(c), R.A. No. 9208 as amended by R.A. No. 10364 — Sets life imprisonment and a fine of not less than P2,000,000.00 but not more than P5,000,000.00 for qualified trafficking. Applied to affirm the penalty.